Question Time

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

whiskywill

Established Member
Joined
8 Nov 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
7
Location
Sunny South Wales
I have just watched Question Time. It was good but spoiled by that "thing" in drag queen makeup and a pink beret. What an a**ehole. It was me, me, me, I run marathons to save the world, me me, me.

p.s. The "thing" reminded me of my mother-in-law.
 
I thought it was just me. I had a certain admiration for the guy before, but it went straight out the window. I for one feel no obligation to make the world a nice place for 7 billion people (nor do I attempt to screw it up for them either) but I object to being lectured by extremely wealthy (usually supposedly socialist) people on what to think about the world's poor. No doubt the Press in the morning will tell us how rude Farage was again - I thought he held temper extremely well. I'd have said sorry, finish the show without me, and walked. I suspect Hilary Benn hasn't recovered from his drubbing by Andrew Neil yet. Some say Farage alone would persuade them to vote in ... that is the effect Benn (and Kinnock) has on me, to vote out. Their oozing sincerity makes me want to puke.
 
I am banned from watching Question Time by SWMBO. She says it is not good for my heart and the amount of swear words escaping from my mouth is not good at all. I am glad I did not watch last night.
 
Last nights performance just enhanced my opinion that all politicians are crooks and scared of losing their gravy train jobs and that includes the un-elected, un-audited bunch in Brussels.
As for them creating yet another layer of embassies and high commissions in the world. We cant even vote this lot out of office. Our own just get promote into the house of Lords for cocking up.
If one never though of that scenario, think now. Lets withdraw all funding from them and protect ourselves.
In hind sight I am sorry I voted for joining all those years ago, but it did seem a good thing at the time.

(hammer)
Richard
 
Peter Sefton":104tvc0e said:
I normally enjoy watching QT but Eddie Izzard was even more annoying than usual, can we deport him?

Cheers Peter
We probably can't deport him, there'll be an EU ruling somewhere saying, a**eholes who wear pink berets and bright red lipstick can not be deported.
I used to like the guy, not now, tbh anyone who runs (or claims to run) marathons back to back must have a screw loose.

Stew
 
I know he's said it before, but I still like Farage's line, "This turkey IS voting for Christmas!"

The really disappointing thing about Izzard is that he posed(!) some sensible questions in the middle of everything, but was so obnoxious that they never got discussed. And you NEVER play the man rather than the ball.

I have no doubt that, by lunchtime (once it's been watched on iPlayer by the Remain war room), he'll become "suddenly unavailable" for a large number of media opportunities, until after 23rd. There may even be oblique phone calls from "media consultants" along the lines of, "I've heard David was really disappointed about last night - it wasn't a good audience, and apparently he doesn't think the issues were well aired. But I'm really calling about that project we were discussing for July. You were hoping to follow Mrs. C. around for a month or so weren't you, fly-on-wall style, for that daytime show we talked about? I'm afraid we're having some difficulty selling the idea to her at the moment, and I'm not sure that she'll be available..."

Of course that's fiction, but similar things happen all the time. Few people outside politics and the media know that there's a de facto rule on current affairs programmes that cabinet ministers always get the last question (or to speak last). If you, as a producer, don't agree to that, the minister will simply have more pressing commitments elsewhere. That's the way the game is played.

That was the first debate or panel programme I've seen for a long time where real concerns got addressed in a sensible way. The ITV Cameron-Farage show earlier in the week was well orchestrated: I can't tell from this side of the screen if it was the show's producers caving under pressure (from the Remain/Downing St. Press office, most probably), or just naivete from Farage's media people, but on Tuesday he was spit-roasted (and frankly he well deserved it) by the audience and Cameron. I hope he's learned from the experience.

The same "back room people" won't be at all happy about last night (and I bet Cameron himself is seething). If you see details of forthcoming shows are suddenly changed in the next couple of days, "unavoidably", you now have some idea of what's probably happened.

E.

*Before Jacob sounds off about this, I have been involved in political TV and radio programmes, on both sides of the camera, and from the perspective of both TV production and a political party. I know all about the "pre-match" negotiations, about who gets to speak when, etc., which questions are acceptable, and so on. Even on completely live shows, very little you see is accidental or "just happens" - the presenters have switched talkback in their ears for good reasons, and work extremely closely with the show's producers all the time they're on-air and beforehand. The politicians use as much leverage as they possibly can to swing things in their favour before a single frame is aired.

Last night's show got in 'under the radar' as someone in the Remain camp badly miscalculated the balance of both panel and audience, and particularly the effect their "star" Izzard would have ("He's great with young people!"). But the audience wasn't predominantly young people, but a good range, many of whom had no time for the posturing and preening. Izzard evidently hadn't been properly prepped either (or won't take direction). They won't let it happen again, if they can help it.

I forgot to mention the "last resort" rule: if you can't debate, don't - in other words defeat hostile audiences by avoiding them altogether. You might find that some shows are changed to be much more the format of Tuesday night than QT.
 
PS to above: I note with no surprise that there's almost no reference made to last night's Question TIme on either the BBC or the Daily Telegraph news web sites - as if it never happened.

Whereas the ITV debate, featuring an ill-prepared* Boris Johnson getting roasted by a well organised team effort (no disrespect to them for that!), is all over the front pages. And yet the public are always saying they want issues properly explained and debated, whereas in the ITV debate they ganged-up to 'play the man' rather than the ball.

"Go figure," as they say.

E.

*serves him right - does he ever bother to read any brief? Just because he wants us to vote leave doesn't stop him being a complete... [no carrier].
 
Richard863":369ogm45 said:
Last nights performance just enhanced my opinion that all politicians are crooks and scared of losing their gravy train jobs and that includes the un-elected, un-audited bunch in Brussels.
As for them creating yet another layer of embassies and high commissions in the world. We cant even vote this lot out of office. Our own just get promote into the house of Lords for cocking up.
If one never though of that scenario, think now. Lets withdraw all funding from them and protect ourselves.
In hind sight I am sorry I voted for joining all those years ago, but it did seem a good thing at the time.

(hammer)
Richard

We voted to be part of the European Economic Community (EEC) the emphasis being econonmic
We are voting now to stay or leave the European Union the emphasis being union
2 totally different things
 
lurker":2g2wupga said:
We voted to be part of the European Economic Community (EEC) the emphasis being econonmic
We are voting now to stay or leave the European Union the emphasis being union
2 totally different things

Absolutely. AND those who voted in '75 (I was a bit too young, sadly), were lied to by Heath et al.

Google Lord Kilmuir's letter (legal advice) to Heath from 1960 (the full text is there from the Google search). All the protagonists then knew where the thing was going, but deliberately lied to the electorate about it at the time.

E.

PS: To save people time, this link has most of the letter, but I'm sure the Remain camp will immediately shout "bias!". I can't find a scan of the original - haven't time to go looking this morning, but IIRC it was released ages ago under the 30-year rule as a Cabinet paper: Heath wasn't a member then, but Kilmuir was (as a government law officer - he wasn't Lord Chancellor until later, IIRC). Wilson would have been given exactly the same advice in 1964 onwards (including before the 1975 referendum - remember he retired immediately afterwards), as Kilmuir's advice was on the record and official, so-to-speak.

There are good reasons why it's policy never to divulge advice from law officers in the normal course of government - you have to be quite a detective sometimes to get to the truth, and it can take decades!
 
Eric The Viking":3b1oo0x3 said:
Last night's show got in 'under the radar' as someone in the Remain camp badly miscalculated the balance of both panel and audience, and particularly the effect their "star" Izzard would have

Not sure if it was accident or design, but it did have a pro leave bias. 3 leave to 2 remain, one of the latter being a comedian who, rightly or wrongly, was unlikely to be taken seriously because of his style.

I think it is about time that QT had a rethink on the panel make up. Last night's was fairly typical - a couple of serious politicians, Farage, a journalist and a comedian. The latter two had no more insight into the issues than any random couple of people dragged in off the street. Not sure what they added. The only useful purpose of the invariably loathesome journalist present is to make the politicians look relatively pleasant and well-reasoned. They certainly don't need to be given another platform.
 
OK I admit Izzard did come across as a twit.
But what he said to Farage was right.
I remember home moaning that he was on a bus and no-one was speaking English.
Why should they? It could have been his wife and children or my children on the bus.
I presume he only talks in the language of the country he is in when abroad.
 
Strange how it goes. I voted against joining, I was told I was a fool.

Now, i'm voting against leaving. I suppose I'll be called a fool again by the same people as last time.
 
Eric The Viking":1boaae1a said:
.....
*Before Jacob sounds off about this, ....
Not a word!
I don't watch much TV. In fact I hate it. Occasional films or documentaries.
I'd happily get rid of it except the wife is a bit an addict. Opiate of the people.
 
I only caught the tail end,must get on to iplayer.Izzard certainly looked a pratt and not someone to be taken seriously.My missis says I am an old fashioned 60 year old when I make comments about people like him but hey ho.
 
I find the Izzard persona very unattractive - but I assume he has a fan base probably of an entirely different age group to both me and the bulk of contributors to this forum. Take away the appearance and style, his input may be worthwhile and convincing to others. As an unreformed egotist, he was a vocal balance to equally egotistical politicians.

What has become utterly clear is that the debate has largely descended into a litany of half truths and simplistic dogma. If someone take issue with the point you are making, shout louder. Anyone wanting to make an informed judgement needs to do their own research.
 
Terry - Somerset":14hm5356 said:
What has become utterly clear is that the debate has largely descended into a litany of half truths and simplistic dogma. If someone take issue with the point you are making, shout louder. Anyone wanting to make an informed judgement needs to do their own research.

That is very much how I view this campaign. It is a sad reflection of modern politics. Politics is totally media driven now, so we see career politicians that spend their time with body language coaches and have acting classes to understand camera angles etc. To appeal to a mass audience everything is simplified to a few soundbites.
 
I found a clip on YouTube of the Farage and Izzard stuff, standard Eddie Izzard as far as I am concerned. What's the problem? The guy is a comedian, who thinks fast, and was nagging Farage into explaining why his German wife is ok, but why is nobody else allowed one. Farage, like any politician was trying his best to avoid that argument and present his own agenda.

Izzard is about as European as you can get - he's done entire shows in other lands all in their native tongue, with jokes too, which I would imagine is harder than just speaking the lingo.

He's a clever chap, perhaps he went over the heads of some people. The heckler in the audience was no doubt one of the older gentlemen upset that a man was wearing makeup, which makes me worried about those voting out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s5wqmsVTnk
 

Latest posts

Back
Top